Thread: Concerns about Content Patch 2.1

A few remarks.

• The branch development model is just that, a conceptual and organisational methodology; it doesn't imply that said branches are big or small. Many people are simply asking for smaller but more frequent chunks of new content (many small branches rather than too few big ones). Which has nothing to do with them being broken —less content means less testing; bigger content updates means extensive testing due to higher risks of breaking the existing. It's a matter of choice. It's actually a general trend in the software industry to aim at smaller, more frequent updates (see: Operating Systems, Web browsers, creation suites, etc.) It's actually often considered easier to maintain quality, since you can address tuning, fixes and customers needs on a much more frequent basis, it makes a developer seem (and indeed be) more "involved".
• The WoW model of rolling out new content seems to be —unsurprisingly if the rest of the game is any indication— the one having been chosen for ARR (every 3-5 months, ~3 times a year). However, that game is old and, though it did set the norm a while ago, since then other development teams have addressed the matter of what is essentially perceived as too long wait times between updates. For instance, people have praised GW2 and STO for their frequent updates; a model that is not without bearing some resemblance with other engaging media such as series: new episodes every week, new features every months, major thresholds every quarter.
• Further considering the WoW model, even they did move from linear patches to more asymmetrical updates: (roughly) X.1 is a smaller update, X.2 a bigger one, X.3 a smaller one, and so on. They actually have 3 teams at work: one maintains the mainline, one works of the next patch, a third one on the patch after that (giving each team not 3 but 6 months to produce content, making updates more substantial). That seems to please players more than the old, linear way.
• The QA process of FF XIV is, curiously, quite different from the norm in MMORPG. Most use a public test server (PTS) so as to make sure that content is not only bug-free (as much as possible) but above all well-tuned prior to release. Many veteran MMO players will testify to the fact that there's pretty much no way to ensure tuning and debugging without the participation of thousands of beta testers, something which a company simply cannot perform internally.
• Therefore, somehow "crowd-sourcing" the testing on a PTS, using the 1% of the player base that constantly seeks for new content (usually a much hardcore subset) is a very valid way of raising QA and feedback to a whole new level. Even Blizzard, who's not the worst studio out there, regularly emphasised the invaluable contribution that PTS feedback brings to the fine-tuning of content. These live testers essentially "work" for the rest of the player base, for free (well, they actually pay for it…), and in the meantime they're happy because they get to experience new content on a much more regular basis (in exclusivity on a PTS, then for real on release).
  Not having a PTS for such a large project was many times brought up by veteran gamers as odd, not to say worrying —and indeed, way too many bugs and mistakes in tuning show up on release servers, being fixed way too late after the content was rolled out. This will not change, no in-house QA team has the means to outperform live beta testing by thousands of players (who are keen on theory crafting the hell out of new content, as well as trying to push features to their limits). Meet the power of the crowd!
  There is an argument against PTS: that it breaks the "surprise" of new content. This "spoiler argument" may seem relevant to traditionally secretive companies such as SE, but it doesn't hold much water compared to the benefits provided by PTS (see: Blizzard also being quite the secretive type with their future games and expansions), and frankly players don't care that much that new content is known before it comes. Typically, a few "surprising" features can be kept secret (not rolled on PTS, solely tested by the QA team); and new expansions, not patches, are the real deal when it comes to surprising players.

So, there you have it.
1. PTS should be used to speed up and improve QA, which is not bad but at the same time not particularly great in ARR.
2. Smaller content updates are a new trend much appreciated by players because they can "live with" their game, rather than "wait for" new content too often: it's much more engaging, and favours a much higher retention on a month-to-month basis, according to my sources —it's harder to make them come back if they're used to leaving between every patch, and WoW does suffer of that as subscribing numbers are on a general downward trend during each expansion cycle.

Just my 2 cts on the matter. I think my sig actually sums that up quite well, it actually goes true for players as well as developers.

Warning, wall of text incoming. I'm not going to make a "TLDR"-version of it, so please... Only read if you are interested.

Originally Posted by Alcyon_Densetsu

A few remarks.

• The branch development model is just that, a conceptual and organisational methodology; it doesn't imply that said branches are big or small. Many people are simply asking for smaller but more frequent chunks of new content (many small branches rather than too few big ones). Which has nothing to do with them being broken —less content means less testing; bigger content updates means extensive testing due to higher risks of breaking the existing. It's a matter of choice. It's actually a general trend in the software industry to aim at smaller, more frequent updates (see: Operating Systems, Web browsers, creation suites, etc.) It's actually often considered easier to maintain quality, since you can address tuning, fixes and customers needs on a much more frequent basis, it makes a developer seem (and indeed be) more "involved".
• The WoW model of rolling out new content seems to be —unsurprisingly if the rest of the game is any indication— the one having been chosen for ARR (every 3-5 months, ~3 times a year). However, that game is old and, though it did set the norm a while ago, since then other development teams have addressed the matter of what is essentially perceived as too long wait times between updates. For instance, people have praised GW2 and STO for their frequent updates; a model that is not without bearing some resemblance with other engaging media such as series: new episodes every week, new features every months, major thresholds every quarter.
• Further considering the WoW model, even they did move from linear patches to more asymmetrical updates: (roughly) X.1 is a smaller update, X.2 a bigger one, X.3 a smaller one, and so on. They actually have 3 teams at work: one maintains the mainline, one works of the next patch, a third one on the patch after that (giving each team not 3 but 6 months to produce content, making updates more substantial). That seems to please players more than the old, linear way.
• The QA process of FF XIV is, curiously, quite different from the norm in MMORPG. Most use a public test server (PTS) so as to make sure that content is not only bug-free (as much as possible) but above all well-tuned prior to release. Many veteran MMO players will testify to the fact that there's pretty much no way to ensure tuning and debugging without the participation of thousands of beta testers, something which a company simply cannot perform internally.
• Therefore, somehow "crowd-sourcing" the testing on a PTS, using the 1% of the player base that constantly seeks for new content (usually a much hardcore subset) is a very valid way of raising QA and feedback to a whole new level. Even Blizzard, who's not the worst studio out there, regularly emphasised the invaluable contribution that PTS feedback brings to the fine-tuning of content. These live testers essentially "work" for the rest of the player base, for free (well, they actually pay for it…), and in the meantime they're happy because they get to experience new content on a much more regular basis (in exclusivity on a PTS, then for real on release).
  Not having a PTS for such a large project was many times brought up by veteran gamers as odd, not to say worrying —and indeed, way too many bugs and mistakes in tuning show up on release servers, being fixed way too late after the content was rolled out. This will not change, no in-house QA team has the means to outperform live beta testing by thousands of players (who are keen on theory crafting the hell out of new content, as well as trying to push features to their limits). Meet the power of the crowd!
  There is an argument against PTS: that it breaks the "surprise" of new content. This "spoiler argument" may seem relevant to traditionally secretive companies such as SE, but it doesn't hold much water compared to the benefits provided by PTS (see: Blizzard also being quite the secretive type with their future games and expansions), and frankly players don't care that much that new content is known before it comes. Typically, a few "surprising" features can be kept secret (not rolled on PTS, solely tested by the QA team); and new expansions, not patches, are the real deal when it comes to surprising players.

So, there you have it.
1. PTS should be used to speed up and improve QA, which is not bad but at the same time not particularly great in ARR.
2. Smaller content updates are a new trend much appreciated by players because they can "live with" their game, rather than "wait for" new content too often: it's much more engaging, and favours a much higher retention on a month-to-month basis, according to my sources —it's harder to make them come back if they're used to leaving between every patch, and WoW does suffer of that as subscribing numbers are on a general downward trend during each expansion cycle.

Just my 2 cts on the matter. I think my sig actually sums that up quite well, it actually goes true for players as well as developers.

Well written post Alcyon. I applaud thee. (^_^ )-b

There are always 2 sides of the same coin.

--- Development

Like Alcyon mentioned, Branch development and the size (scope/content wise) of each branch is always determined by choice, based on several factors:

• What do we want to release?
• How many releases do we intend to do each year?
• How much time does it cost to design, develop and test this feature?
• Can we fit it into the next branch without delaying it for an x amount of time?

Based on that, a schedule is being made in which each individual feature will be prioritized and scheduled accordingly.

On top of that, bugs and design flaws will be discovered by the user base, which will have to be prioritized and scheduled as well.

• Is it a critical bug? Does it require a hotfix, or can it wait for a patch?
• Is it a bug due to an unforeseen situation that is not considered to be a critical bug? Does it require to be included into a patch, or do we have to design/implement a better (more time consuming) solution and does it fit in our upcoming (content) update?
• Or is it a wish from the community and do we have time to add it into our upcoming (content) update?

Based on factors like these, either the released branch, the development branch has to be updated. If a separate x.0.1 (or x.05) patch has to be released, a new branch has to be created from the released branch. Once released, the new patch branch has to be merged with the current development branch, with the chance that the changed made to the code has broken something with the development branch.

So, statements like "Why can't SE just implement a right-click option into the game with a patch?" or "Why don't they fix this now? I can do it in a day." might have a bigger impact on the development then you might think.

--- Releasing content

I also agree with Alcyon when he said that releasing smaller, but more frequent content updates are the current "trend". Like the above, it's all a matter of choice if the development team decide to opt for a either development methods.

While releasing smaller content updates sounds great, you cannot expect it to be "grand" or will be able to keep players busy for a long time. The development team has to be divided among more smaller projects and more development branches have to be created to accommodate the size of each project. It's possible to change the development process to, for example:

Update x: Implement quality of life solutions and a handfull of new side quests/FATEs
The next month, Update y: Implement a new dungeon and a handfull of side quests/FATEs
The month after that, Update z: Implement a new larger feature (Housing, Chocobo Raising/Racing, Large Scale PvP) or a new Raid.
...
Rinse and repeat.

Even though each monthly update contains a bit of content, most content will be finished in a day or 2 by a lot of people. You cannot change that fact. Players will play the game at their own pace, one faster then the other. We would still have to wait for a new dungeon to be released every 2 months, and a larger feature every 3 months.

The big question, would that really chance the fact that people will get bored after playing the same content for a couple of weeks? Personally, i don't think it would.

Next to that, the gaming industry has seen a massive change in it's consumer base. In the past, MMO's were played by people who would invest every single minute, getting the best gear possible, grinding XP for hours on end to level up, etc. They didn't care that it would take months to reach the maximum level, or that it would take months to get that specific weapon, which would give that extra point of strength.

That era has passed and more different types of player exist in the world. The Hardcore players from the Ultima Online, Everquest, etc age are currently only a small portion of the player base that play games nowadays.

As a company, Yoshi-P has to include all the other types of players to get the most of the currently consumer markets, just to have his game survive the competition. This includes making a bigger variety of content to attract as many players as he can. Ultimately, that would have a big impact on the development of new content, since it has to be catered to a largely varied player base.

Not everyone loves End Game content like Raiding.
Not everyone loves PvP.
Not everyone loves crafting/gathering.
Not everyone loves XP grinding hours on end.

So, to keep people attracted to the game, the development team has to create content for each type of player and find new and interesting things to keep the current player base busy, while attracting new players at the same time.

Therefore, it just isn't possible to add new content for everyone in a "small" amount of time, for every one. And, on top of that, if you only implement something new for the casual player, the hardcore player will be pissed (and visa versa).

--- Public Test Realms (PTR)

A lot of people are asking for PTR servers, so that they can test the features before they are released to the public. I agree. The game will benefit a lot from releasing PTR-servers. Mostly because bugs, balance and design issues will be found earlier during the development process and can be dealt with sooner.

But, on the other side, i don't think it will speed up the development that much faster. It will more likely enhance the quality of the content then the speed in which it will be released, because the players will not only just the content based on the amount of bugs or balance issues they find, but also if the content is fun to do. Based on that, while increasing the quality of the content, the development time might also increase because of it.

So, in my personal opinion. Using PTR's will improve the quality of the game, but don't request them hoping to simply increase the speed in which content updates will be released.

---

I'm a developer myself, but above all, i'm a player like all of you. Even though i tell myself all of the above and understand why "simple things/features" can take a lot of time to develop/release, i'm also waiting for more content to play like everyone else.

The waiting game is always a hard one, especially when you are on the receiving end of it.

the games only 3 months old have some patience ppl